[MR] Unfortunate Tidings regarding the Queen's Arms change

[Dave Montuori]

Respondit Kwellend-Njal ad Gorm:
>> There hasn't ever been a definitive "This is the number it takes" 
>> ruling that I have been able to locate.
> 
> It wouldn't show up in a ruling, as it is set forth in the Admin 
> Handbook (http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/admin.html#IV_C): [snip]

I disagree to the extent that a more specific interpretation COULD show 
up in a ruling.

> Note that it specifically says "Submissions involving the branch name 
> or arms of an active branch".  The Queen's arms are neither....
> The return does say "changing armory that 
> is as important as the consort's arms.", so it appears that Laurel 
> considers the consort's arms equivalent to branch arms, but this is the 
> first time I have seen that asserted.

There is a specific ruling that states that Consort's Arms (if a kingdom 
should submit same) are subject to the same polling requirements as 
Kingdom Arms. It dates back to late 1995, if memory serves correctly.

> Last, I believe that Laurel's ruling was incorrect in at least two 
> other ways.
> 
> First, 93 out of 2083 *is* sufficient, from a statistical point of 
> view, with a margin of error less than 5% (assuming that the 93 are 
> randomly chosen, which this sample fails, but...)
> 
> Second, there have been many issues where the Board of Directors would 
> have been delighted to have heard from 93 SCA members out of 25000, let 
> alone 93 out of 2100. Holding the Kingdoms to a higher standard than 
> the Board holds itself seems a little... unreasonable?

The Board is known to hold kingdoms to a higher standard than it does 
itself, however. Consider the Board's position on what fraction would 
count as "sufficient support" for a Principality....

Evan